In recent weeks, abject intel failures in America, Britain and France have proved deadly. Associated Press
reported that at the “Boston Marathon, in the streets of London and in
the shadow of one of Paris’ most recognizable monuments,” Muslims
“carried out jihadi attacks with little help, using inexpensive, widely
available knives and explosives from everyday ingredients. In each of
the attacks, suspects had previously been flagged to law enforcement and
deemed not to be a priority.”

A French government report that has just recently been released shows
the breadth of this intelligence failure. A French academic, Mathieu
Guidere, explained that the West’s intelligence agencies were “not
originally made for fighting against this kind of threat. They’re
intended to fight against cells, against groups, against organizations,
but not against individuals. It’s a question of adapting. That’s why
there are the same errors in Boston, London and France. There was
identification – but not detention – before the suspects passed into the
realm of action.”

However, David Omand, Britain’s former security and intelligence
coordinator, disagreed, saying that “no reliable psychological test or
checklist has been devised that can predict when such an individual may
tip over into actually taking violent action. Short of a police state on
East German lines the number of such individuals who can be subject to
very intensive surveillance sufficient to detect preparations for
violent action is but a small proportion of the total – and of course
individuals can flip quickly even where they have been checked out
previously.”

It’s true that Western intelligence officials don’t have a “reliable
psychological test or checklist” to ferret out jihadists, whether or not
one can be devised. France’s highest security official, Manuel Valls,
complained that the Paris jihad attacker “simply didn’t ‘fit the profile
of a jihadist.’”

I disagree. All of the Muslims involved in these attacks absolutely
fit the profile of an operational jihadist. The question is, who
determines what the profile of a jihadist is? Are intelligence officials
in Britain, France and the United States consulting with experts on
jihad like Robert Spencer or Ibn Warraq? No. So of course they get it
wrong. Barack Obama scrubbed all counter-terror materials and training
of jihad and Islam – how can an accurate profile of a jihadist be
rendered by American intelligence officials? Last week, Obama recommended that to prevent “violent extremism” inspired by violent jihadists, intel agencies must work with Muslim groups
(the same groups that work to dismantle counter-jihad programs) “to
identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when
an individual is drifting toward violence.”

Historically, they oppose us. They protest our freedom rallies. The
Daily Mail reported Monday that the jihad murderer Mujahid Adebolajo
“was among hundreds of young Muslims who gathered outside Harrow Central
Mosque in North-West London” on Sept. 11, 2009, so as to “‘defend’ it
against a planned joint protest by the English Defence League and Stop
the Islamisation of Europe group.” The jihad murderer was protesting our
group – in the company of numerous Muslim “moderates” who deplored our
“Islamophobia.”

But where are their protests, beyond simple press statements, against
how the Islamic jihadists have used the texts and teachings of Islam to
justify the jihad murders in Boston and London? Where are the protests
against the Quranic texts and teachings that command jihad? This is who
Obama is advising us to count on?

Comments

In recent weeks, abject intel failures in America, Britain and France have proved deadly. Associated Press
reported that at the “Boston Marathon, in the streets of London and in
the shadow of one of Paris’ most recognizable monuments,” Muslims
“carried out jihadi attacks with little help, using inexpensive, widely
available knives and explosives from everyday ingredients. In each of
the attacks, suspects had previously been flagged to law enforcement and
deemed not to be a priority.”

A French government report that has just recently been released shows
the breadth of this intelligence failure. A French academic, Mathieu
Guidere, explained that the West’s intelligence agencies were “not
originally made for fighting against this kind of threat. They’re
intended to fight against cells, against groups, against organizations,
but not against individuals. It’s a question of adapting. That’s why
there are the same errors in Boston, London and France. There was
identification – but not detention – before the suspects passed into the
realm of action.”

However, David Omand, Britain’s former security and intelligence
coordinator, disagreed, saying that “no reliable psychological test or
checklist has been devised that can predict when such an individual may
tip over into actually taking violent action. Short of a police state on
East German lines the number of such individuals who can be subject to
very intensive surveillance sufficient to detect preparations for
violent action is but a small proportion of the total – and of course
individuals can flip quickly even where they have been checked out
previously.”

It’s true that Western intelligence officials don’t have a “reliable
psychological test or checklist” to ferret out jihadists, whether or not
one can be devised. France’s highest security official, Manuel Valls,
complained that the Paris jihad attacker “simply didn’t ‘fit the profile
of a jihadist.’”

I disagree. All of the Muslims involved in these attacks absolutely
fit the profile of an operational jihadist. The question is, who
determines what the profile of a jihadist is? Are intelligence officials
in Britain, France and the United States consulting with experts on
jihad like Robert Spencer or Ibn Warraq? No. So of course they get it
wrong. Barack Obama scrubbed all counter-terror materials and training
of jihad and Islam – how can an accurate profile of a jihadist be
rendered by American intelligence officials? Last week, Obama recommended that to prevent “violent extremism” inspired by violent jihadists, intel agencies must work with Muslim groups
(the same groups that work to dismantle counter-jihad programs) “to
identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when
an individual is drifting toward violence.”

Historically, they oppose us. They protest our freedom rallies. The
Daily Mail reported Monday that the jihad murderer Mujahid Adebolajo
“was among hundreds of young Muslims who gathered outside Harrow Central
Mosque in North-West London” on Sept. 11, 2009, so as to “‘defend’ it
against a planned joint protest by the English Defence League and Stop
the Islamisation of Europe group.” The jihad murderer was protesting our
group – in the company of numerous Muslim “moderates” who deplored our
“Islamophobia.”

But where are their protests, beyond simple press statements, against
how the Islamic jihadists have used the texts and teachings of Islam to
justify the jihad murders in Boston and London? Where are the protests
against the Quranic texts and teachings that command jihad? This is who
Obama is advising us to count on?